Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:11:53 +0600
From: agent <>
Subject: Re: build musl with clang

23.08.2012 18:24, Rich Felker пишет:
> but in the long term I think using the GNU dynamic linker is going to 
> get more and more unrealistic, so it's probably best not to even try. 
i didn't want to, at first i missed -dynamic-linker option and it was 
the only somehow working variant.
> Did you change the options musl was compiled/linked with? Naively, my
> first guess is that -Bsymbolic-functions was omitted.
i was using

CC=clang ./configure --prefix=...

and other things were default. no changes to any files.

23.08.2012 18:24, John Spencer пишет:
> this sounds as if the binary uses gnu hash as opposed to sysv hash. 
> did you use ./configure ?
> see FAQ in
i didn't use any build systems, just a shell script with commands. that 
was just a hello world. i was able to compile it and if i encounter any 
problems in future, i'll try the solution from FAQ.
btw, there was no link to this wiki from main site
> there is another known bug in clang which will lead to calloc getting 
> wrongly optimized away, because clang disrespects -ffree-standing. 
> Richard Pennington wanted to reported this to the LLVM maillist months 
> ago, but afaik he still hasn't done this.
i was investigating the possibility of using clang + musl for writing a 
new program, not for porting existing software, so it may be possible to 
avoid using some functions in reasonable scale, or change any component 
in this bundle.
and does that bug affect a whole *alloc family or just calloc?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.